New 200 amp panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
We used to see this all the time with exterior panels. @- 2" couplings with a TA and all the wires run in from the back. A clear violation yet it is allowed in some areas. Not sure why
 
Last edited:
infinity said:
Also the exception is for entering an enclosure a wireway is a raceway not an enclosure.
Click to expand...
Does that mean he should have left one of the end caps out, brought all the cables in that end and plugged the rest the opening with duct seal?:cool:
 
Ok, so I understand... though this looks very neat on the bottom picture, because the couplings are between the trough and the panels, and because the raceways at the top are not 18inches or longer, it does not pass code?
 
Adamjamma said:
Ok, so I understand... though this looks very neat on the bottom picture, because the couplings are between the trough and the panels, and because the raceways at the top are not 18inches or longer, it does not pass code?
Click to expand...


That is correct

312.5(C) Cables. Where cable is used, each cable shall be securedto the cabinet, cutout box, or meter socket enclosure.
Exception: Cables with entirely nonmetallic sheaths shall be permitted to
enter the top of a surface-mounted enclosure through one or more
nonflexible raceways not less than 450 mm (18 in.) and not more than
3.0 m (10 ft) in length, provided all of the following conditions are
met:
(1) Each cable is fastened within 300 mm (12 in.), measured along
the sheath, of the outer end of the raceway.
(2) The raceway extends directly above the enclosure and does not
penetrate a structural ceiling.
(3) A fitting is provided on each end of the raceway to protect the
cable(s) from abrasion and the fittings remain accessible after
installation.
(4) The raceway is sealed or plugged at the outer end using approved
means so as to prevent access to the enclosure through the raceway.
(5) The cable sheath is continuous through the raceway and extends
into the enclosure beyond the fitting not less than 6 mm (1∕4 in.).
(6) The raceway is fastened at its outer end and at other points in
accordance with the applicable article.
(7) Where installed as conduit or tubing, the cable fill does not exceed
the amount that would be permitted for complete conduit or
tubing systems by Table 1 of Chapter 9 of this Code and all applicable
notes thereto. Note 2 to the tables in Chapter 9 does not
apply to this condition.
Click to expand...
 
Adamjamma said:
Ok, so I understand... though this looks very neat on the bottom picture, because the couplings are between the trough and the panels, and because the raceways at the top are not 18inches or longer, it does not pass code?
Click to expand...
Most would say no it doesn't pass, but a technicality infinity brings up in post 20 complicates this.
 
wwhitney said:
As the wireway is a raceway, and as it looks to be over 18" long, where's the violation of 312.5(C) Exception?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

The 18"-to-120" sleeves must enter a surface enclosure, only from above and the raceway much extend directly above the enclosure. In the example, the nonmetallic cables run through sleeves/conduits that enter a raceway, not an enclosure. The raceway does not extend directly above the enclosures...it's horizontal.

This could be fixed by removing the raceway and running 18" conduit sleeves straight up from each enclosure.
 
Craigv said:
The 18"-to-120" sleeves must enter a surface enclosure, only from above and the raceway much extend directly above the enclosure. In the example, the nonmetallic cables run through sleeves/conduits that enter a raceway, not an enclosure. The raceway does not extend directly above the enclosures...it's horizontal.
Click to expand...
My thoughts:

The conduit stubs are raceways, the wireway is a raceway, so it's all raceways.

The phrase "The raceway extends directly above the enclosure" does not conflict with the configuration shown.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
My thoughts:

*The conduit stubs are raceways*, the wireway is a raceway, so it's all raceways.

The phrase "The raceway extends directly above the enclosure" does not conflict with the configuration shown.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
My take is that a raceway, under the NEC, is part of a system which runs from one enclosure to another, not the individual components which could be used to construct such a system but are not.
As a result code sections that refer to raceways do not explicitly apply to sleeves that are terminated to an enclosure or adapter only at one end or at neither end, regardless of what the sleeve is made of.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
wwhitney said:
My thoughts:

The conduit stubs are raceways, the wireway is a raceway, so it's all raceways.

The phrase "The raceway extends directly above the enclosure" does not conflict with the configuration shown.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't agree here.

-The sleeve does not enter an enclosure. It enters another raceway. So the exception is violated right from the start. We could try to interpret the "one or more non flexible raceways" as meaning that you can stack them, but not one handbook diagram or explanation I've ever seen shows this, so I doubt that's a reasonable interpretation. But even if we go with that....

-That horizontal raceway absolutely conflicts, and violates condition 2: "The raceway extends directly above the enclosure...". The raceway runs horizontally and extends, to the sides, not directly above, past the top of the enclosure on both sides.
 
GoldDigger said:
My take is that a raceway, under the NEC, is part of a system which runs from one enclosure to another, not the individual components which could be used to construct such a system but are not.
Click to expand...
That point of view is in conflict with the Article 100 definition and is also incompatible with the wording of 312.5(C) Exception.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Craigv said:
-The sleeve does not enter an enclosure. It enters another raceway. So the exception is violated right from the start. We could try to interpret the "one or more non flexible raceways" as meaning that you can stack them, but not one handbook diagram or explanation I've ever seen shows this, so I doubt that's a reasonable interpretation. But even if we go with that....
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it is clear that you can stack raceways and still have a raceway. If I use a 6" piece of rigid and a 12" piece of PVC, are you really going to say that I don't have an 18" long raceway? I don't see stacking the nipples and the wireway as any different.

Craigv said:
-That horizontal raceway absolutely conflicts, and violates condition 2: "The raceway extends directly above the enclosure...". The raceway runs horizontally and extends, to the sides, not directly above, past the top of the enclosure on both sides.
Click to expand...
I am at a bit of a loss to understand the meaning of the word "directly" in the above quote, as in what is the difference between "extending above the enclosure" and "extending directly above the enclosure." I would agree with your interpretation if the word were "only" or "exclusively" or something like that. But I don't see "directly" as requiring that the raceway not extend to the left or right of the enclosure.

I do think it is a reasonable interpretation that the wording requires that the top of the raceway(s) be 18" above the top of the panel, and I'm not clear from the photo if that is the case.

Cheers, Wayne
 
On the topic of 312.5(C), the only point of complying with the exception is to avoid the 312.5(C) requirement to secure the cable to the cabinet. So is there an easy way to secure multiple cables to the cabinet as they come out of the sleeve? I could see use a perforated cable tie and screwing the cable tie to the cabinet, but something more elegant would be desirable.

BTW, the article 100 definition of cabinet and cutout box both require a hinged door. So when using a panelboard without a door, there is no need to comply with 312.5(C).

Cheers, Wayne
 
Perhaps what is needed is to request that such a nice job like that is acceptable in future code, instead of just the one over the raceways... get the exception added with picture to show how much neater and nicer an install it is... since there are questions about it.

I think that it is worth a try, at least..
 
Adamjamma said:
Perhaps what is needed is to request that such a nice job like that is acceptable in future code, instead of just the one over the raceways... get the exception added with picture to show how much neater and nicer an install it is... since there are questions about it.

I think that it is worth a try, at least..
Click to expand...

I disagree, better to leave it to the discretion of the inspector to allow the exception/allowance.

While the install is a minor technical violation, it is a perfectly safe set up that many may allow, which was what prolly happened here.

Writing in more exceptions just complicates things.
 
wwhitney said:
BTW, the article 100 definition of cabinet and cutout box both require a hinged door. So when using a panelboard without a door, there is no need to comply with 312.5(C).

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

All well and good, but the Exception clearly states "surface-mounted enclosure", which is defined in Article 100 as, "The case or housing of apparatus". The example fits this definition, as would a panel board without a door.
 
wwhitney said:
Yes, I think it is clear that you can stack raceways and still have a raceway. If I use a 6" piece of rigid and a 12" piece of PVC, are you really going to say that I don't have an 18" long raceway? I don't see stacking the nipples and the wireway as any different.


I am at a bit of a loss to understand the meaning of the word "directly" in the above quote, as in what is the difference between "extending above the enclosure" and "extending directly above the enclosure." I would agree with your interpretation if the word were "only" or "exclusively" or something like that. But I don't see "directly" as requiring that the raceway not extend to the left or right of the enclosure.

I do think it is a reasonable interpretation that the wording requires that the top of the raceway(s) be 18" above the top of the panel, and I'm not clear from the photo if that is the case.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

di·rect·ly

[diˈrektlē, dīˈrektlē]
ADVERB

  • without changing direction or stopping.

    The real difference is that "above the enclosure" could be any place higher than the top of the enclosure. "Directly above" means within the dimensions of width and depth but higher.
    The wireway way does not extend directly above the enclosure. "Directly above" means the wire way must remain within the width of the enclosure, because extending beyond either side would constitute a deflection or bend...it's no longer directly above.

    The wireway is clearly quite a bit wider than the enclosure, and is horizontal, not vertical. Cable exiting the enclosure must exit the raceway directly above, not veering off in various directions and then exiting vertically through a raceway off to one side or other. If this wasn't the intent there would be no need to include "directly" in the wording. The word is there for a reason.
 
Adamjamma said:
Perhaps what is needed is to request that such a nice job like that is acceptable in future code, instead of just the one over the raceways... get the exception added with picture to show how much neater and nicer an install it is... since there are questions about it.

I think that it is worth a try, at least..
Click to expand...


I don't think this is a safe installation. It looks nice, but the point of the article and the exception is to prevent pulling multiple non-metallic cables through raceways in a manner that can damage them. Multiple entry and exits through conduit to wireway and then to conduit, possibly bending and very likely installed as a bundle in one pull can skin jackets and overbend conductors. I've repaired these types of installations for those very problems.

The exception exists solely to allow running multiple jacketed cable through a single exit from and enclosure...it's a common expedient for panel installations and replacements. Code normally requires each cable be secured to the enclosure exit point individually. The exception's stringient requirements are there for good reason, imho.
 
Nutmegger said:
"No splices in the panel" -- I always wanted to know the source of this myth... Of all the made-up "rules" propagated by (I suspect) pre-sale home inspectors, this one must be the dumbest. Panel's enclosure (what most call "panel") is technically just a big junction box with breakers and busses thrown in.
Click to expand...

I used to hear that a lot and still do occasionally

Because NEC said no splices in panel

And then said except under these conditions

Panel would have to be crammed absurdly full to not meet exceptions

(just going by memory, will pull out old code books and find if necessary)

But anyway always assumed someone was not reading past 1st statement
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top